Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR569],(2002)IIILLJ760Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made basically challenging the order of transfer issued, vide memo dated January 16/17, 2002, being annexure P-11 to the writ petition and also from altering the service conditions of the workmen/members of the petitioner, i.e., union, during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding before respondent No. 3. A further order is sought for declaring the impugned promotions as transfers made during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings are void ab initio.2. This writ petition has been filed on April 10, 2002, after a period of about three months from such order. It further appears to this Court from a communication dated February 19, 2002, under annexure P-13 to the writ petition that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Howrah, has written to the concerned co-operative bank requesting them not to take any action that might stand in the way of maintaining a cordial atmosphere which is needed in resolving the dispute amicably. Thereafter, he cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT253(HC)
D.P. Kundu, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 20.04.95 [Annexure 'E' of the writ petition), the charge-sheet dated 12.06.95 (Annexure-'F' of the writ petition) and the corrigendum of the charge-sheet dated 10.07.95 (Annexure-'G' of the writ petition).2. The petitioner, inter alia, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and/or their Managers, officers, subordinates to (a) forthwith rescind, recall forbear and withdraw and/or not to give any effect or furthereffect to the charge-sheet dated 12.06.1995 (Annexure-'F') read together with corrigendum dated 10.07.1995 (Annexure-'G') and the order of suspension dated 20.04.1995 (Annexure-'E') and (b) treat the petitioner on duty during the period of suspension and accordingly pay him his full wages and allowances and other privileges for which he would have been entitled as if he came on daily duties and also to pay salaries for 65 days to the petitioner while he was in judicial custody ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal373,62CWN405,(1958)IILLJ61Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It raises the short but interesting point whether the dispute of the workers of a co-operative society with their employers can be referred to an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. Statutory conflict between the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 and the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was debated at the Bar. Which statute should prevail is the problem posed. It is a point of first impression. 2. Its determination may be prefaced by a short account of some simple facts. The applicant is the Co-operative Milk Societies Union Ltd., a society registered under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. The respondents are the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, the co-operative Milk Employees and Workers' Union which is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and the Government of West Bengal. The object of this society is promotion of the common interest of its member...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN610
Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. The writ application has been filed by two writ petitioners, one is the Kharibari Tea Company Limited as petitioner No. 1, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of tea plantation, manufacturing and processing of tea and by petitioner No. 2 working for gain as well as Director of said company, petitioner No. 1 in the said organisation. Relief prayed for in this writ application is to this effect:(a) Issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and each of them to forthwith cancel and/or quash and/or rescind and/or revoke and/or recall the impugned order as in Annexure T5' and to treat your petitioners' factory at Sachindra Chandra Tea Estate in the district of Darjeeling as a 'new industry' and forthwith grant concession in accordance with Clause (a) of the TOD Tariff in the Tariff and Related Conditions of Supply as in Annexures 'P2 to PP1', to your petitioners at their factory at Sach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT218(HC),2008(3)CHN566,[2009(121)FLR859]
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Nazrul Islam, is a member of the Indian Police Service, at present posted as Inspector General, Enforcement Branch, West Bengal. His grievances are as follows:Many officers, including some members of the IAS and IPS, were not comfortable with him due to his rigid attitude, commitment and conviction, as reflected from the manner of discharging his duties. His various acts demanding transparency caused embarrassment to some others.2. The news that the petitioner was facing Vigilance inquiry - investigation' in connection with his construction of a house was telecast in one T.V. Channel on 18.3.2006. The petitioner wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) on 30th March, 2006 seeking confirmation. He received a memo No. 501-P & AR (Vig.) dated 3.5.2006 from Special Secretary Vigilance Cell, Home (P & AR) Department on 5.5.2006 whereby it was intimated that Vigilance Commission had decided to examine him 'by way of open in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007[2]STR315
ORDERArun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The writ petitioner in the instant writ petition challenged the departmental proceeding initiated against him, the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority (being Annexure P-14 to the writ petition).Facts in Brief2. The writ petitioner is a Professor of Statistics working the Indian Statistical Institute (respondent No. 1 herein). Since 1991 the writ petitioner has been working as Professor and prior to that he was an associated Professor. He is a Ph.D.3. On 26.12.2003 the petitioner allegedly took a book under the name. 'Real Mathematical Analysis' by G.G. Pugh. The petitioner did not make any entry before the Librarian and/ or took the book inside his sweater and tried to get away with the book. The librarian, on suspicion, apprehended him and he gave a note to the Librarian that he took forgetting to issue the book from the counter. Such note of the petitioner has been made Annexure P-l to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT60(HC),[1999(81)FLR52],(1999)ILLJ828Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 24.7.96 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.R. No. 143 (W) of 1987, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioners was allowed. The writ petitioners/respondents filed the aforementioned writ application claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :'(a) as to why declaratory order should not issue on the respondents, their agents, subordinates and employees namely, the petitioners, are in continuous service with the company, namely, Aluminium Corporation of india Limited, entitling them even after the Aluminium Corporation of india Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Aluminium undertaking) Act, 1981 and to the continuity of service by the payment of notional-gratuity under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; (b) as to why an order in nature of Prohibition should not be issued on the respondents for non exercise of powers under section 4 of the Payment of Gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2000(85)FLR922],(2000)IILLJ894Cal
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of General Manager, South Eastern Railway is directed against order, dated May 6, 1994 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, in Claim Case No. 435 of 1991 thereby holding that the husband of the opposite party was a workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (1923 Act), and as such the claim case filed by the opposite party claiming compensation for the accidental death of her husband was maintainable. The only question that arises for determination in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether a head constable under Railway Protection Force is a workman within the meaning of the 1923 Act.2. For appreciation of the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in Sections 3, 10 and 19 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (RPF Act), as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2012(3)LLN199(DB)
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting and important question in relation to the definition of “appropriate Government” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The principal question which arises in this appeal for consideration is whether Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (in short GRSE) is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows :- “2(a). “appropriate Government” means- (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal375,[1966(12)FLR69],(1966)IILLJ59Cal
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of D.N. Sinna, J. discharging the Rule obtained by the appellant company in respect of 246 of its workmen.2. The significant point for determination in this Appeal is whether termination of service in accordance with the Standing Orders is always and necessarily a retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if it is not so always, in which cases such termination is retrenchment.3. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of country spirit and rectified and denatured spirit. This business is exercised and can only be exercised in terms of an Excise license issued to the petitioner appellant and under its terms the Government fixed the price of the spirit and sanction from the Commissioner of Excise was necessary in order to exceed such a price. The workmen employed by the petitioner company are opposite party No. 4, and are represented by...
Tag this Judgment!